21–30 of 170 posts
H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0], and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get sued over. If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P... [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/
Is a license also required if the x265 codec is used? Or does that depend on whether the software is for commercial use?
H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0], and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get sued over. If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P... [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/
The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).
Plus, partial support is a burden - one of the patent holders might come by and ask you to prove you didn’t accidentally violate one of their patents while fastidiously only using that approved hardware. I think there’s a lot of lawyer risk there below the waterline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).
Chrome leverages hardware decoding in general it just doesn't support h.265 at all, hardware or software.
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).
Chrome and Mozilla both want their competitor format AV1 to “win”. Plus, partial support is a burden - one of the patent holders might come by and ask you to prove you didn’t accidentally violate one of their patents while fastidiously only using that approved hardware. I think there’s a lot of lawyer risk there below the waterline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if an application merely uses the graphic's drivers API to decode a stream, presumably the GPU vendor (and therefore the buyer) already paid for those licensing costs? Otherwise the hardware wouldn't support h265, right?
Right, but neither Google neither Mozilla wants to support it even if they don't need to pay a cent.
But it wasn't, so they'd be letting the entire internet be held to ransom if they supported it.
Can someone help me understand why my windows 10 laptop with the latest VLC can't run x265 video files, but my windows 10 desktop with the latest VLC can? My desktop definitely runs circles around my laptop, but I'm not very well versed on video tech, so I haven't been able to figure out what the issue is on my laptop.
Low powered laptops without HEVC hardware decoding will probably struggle.
HEVC has a long and complicated history. With H.264, it was easy - one patent pool. Any questions? Contact MPEG LA. How much did it cost? About $2 or so per device, no problem. Did you spend more than (IIRC) $14 million on licensing each year? It's free past that point. As for open-source software like Firefox, Cisco actually struck a deal to pay all the royalties if you used their OpenH264 decoder (they needed H.264…
HEVC has a long and complicated history. With H.264, it was easy - one patent pool. Any questions? Contact MPEG LA. How much did it cost? About $2 or so per device, no problem. Did you spend more than (IIRC) $14 million on licensing each year? It's free past that point. As for open-source software like Firefox, Cisco actually struck a deal to pay all the royalties if you used their OpenH264 decoder (they needed H.264…
AAC audio hit the exact same problem. Apple refused to support it until they dropped some of the more ridiculous licencing fees.
Even physical DVD players got shafted by MPEG patent prices becoming a significant share of the entire device costs in later years.
It's always been a scam. It always will be a scam. Exactly like the social networks that are so open and friendly till they've got you locked in. That's the whole business model.
HEVC lived and died by licence fees.
probably a patent issue... I love x265 for the video file size and a decent video quality
Back in the DVD era there was a conscious attempt to converge between the PC industry and consumer electronics. Since then (when they decided that Blu-Ray drives weren't going to be standard in PC) there has been a decoupling. HEVC is a consumer electronics standard, the PC industry is going towards VP9, AV1 and other royalty free codecs. Up until HEVC most codecs had one patent pool you could pay a royalty to and be…
To this day, the only official way to play 4K Blu Ray on a PC is to get a 10th gen Intel and play back using Integrated Graphics using one of the internal drives made by a drive manufacturer who was utterly shafted by this nonsense.
(It's got to hurt more though that 4K Blu Ray's new and improved DRM was, despite all this, broken less than a year after release. If you are a drive maker, knowing your drives are useless on modern PCs because of broken DRM that Blu Ray developers still insist is necessary must be the most infuriating thing ever.)