The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by clouddrover on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @09:03AM (#16114934)

> End users don't care if content is encoded in a patent free format.

This is a tired argument. The same argument was attempted when VP8 was new, and when VP9 was new, and now again with AV1. I'm sure the same, worn-out ground will be revisited when AV2 comes along.

End users don't care that TCP\IP is royalty-free or that HTTP and HTML are royalty-free or that any of the other commonly used formats and protocols are royalty-free. They don't care because they don't understand the issues.

Developers care. Builders care. I care. I want to implement video on the internet for any use case without having to consult a lawyer just to understand the licensing implications of doing so. VP9 and AV1 make that possible. VP9 and AV1 normalize video on the internet by making it royalty-free like all the other internet formats and protocols.

Content companies and hardware companies and software companies don't join AOMedia for the fun of it. They join because it's the practical choice:

http://aomedia.org/about-us/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by notyourday on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @09:54AM (#16115276)

There may be a few hundred thousand of developers that do but there are hundreds of millions of users that just want their stuff to work.

Profit is in the users, not in the developers

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by clouddrover on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @10:05AM (#16115366)

But you've got to produce before you can consume and you've got to deliver to the consumer. AV1's licensing reduces costs and AV1's lower bitrate delivers better picture quality earlier with less bandwidth.

The choice isn't AV1 or users. It's AV1 and users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by notyourday on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @06:04PM (#16119974)

Products already exists. That's what users consume. That's also why users don't care about technological developments unless those technological developments improve user's experience, not make it more difficult for the users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by scarface74 on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @10:28AM (#16115577)

How does it "reduce costs" if you still have to support both?

And I can't find how much licensing actual costs for H.264.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by scarface74 on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @10:57AM (#16115850)

If there is a demand, content will come, I doubt the difference in cost made by the licensing fees are going to mske a difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by scarface74 on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @03:43PM (#16118882)

No, but potential for bandwidth caps with fees for going in light of the removal of network neutrality legislation might tip the balance in the favor of the codec that looks better at a lower bitrate.

What does that have to do with patents and why people should care?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by cuckcuckspruce on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @03:33PM (#16118790)

No, but potential for bandwidth caps with fees for going in light of the removal of network neutrality legislation might tip the balance in the favor of the codec that looks better at a lower bitrate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by wtetzner on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:37PM (#16117003)

I think the problem is that it limits competition. The established companies with deep pockets have an advantage if royalties have to be paid.

This is bad for users, whether they realize it or not. They end up with fewer (and potentially worse) options.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by scarface74 on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:14PM (#16119133)

The cost for a creating, hosting and streaming video is huge. If a new entrant has the funding to create and host compelling video, I doubt that the minuscule cost of royalties will make or break them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by scarface74 on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @10:20AM (#16115498)

The positive affect on large content providers is non existent when they have to support both and negligible as far as cost even when they do.

It doesn't really have an affect on small content producers. I do live streams for a non profit. We pay one time for Wirecast and the Black Magic hardware. Pay a neglible cost to send the livestream to our provider and they broadcast it. iOS users at least can view from the browser using HLS. We also send another stream to Facebook. How does H.264 patents affect us?

You don't have to "consult a lawyer", unless you are creating your own codec. You pay the licensing fee which in the grand scheme of things is lower than all of your other costs - hosting, development tools, internet costs, etc. and you're done.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fight for Patent-Unencumbered Media Codecs Is Nearly Won by vetinari on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @10:58AM (#16115865)

Note that even if H.264 may be free for your use case[1], HEVC is not. For HEVC, you must pay per title or subscriber, if you are content producer.

[1] Which I wouldn't be so sure. Many H.264-using devices come with disclaimer, that they are not licensed for professional use and that you may need your own license. As usual, consult your lawyer. The point of VP9/AV1 is, that this is not necessary.

[ Parent | on HN ]