Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#51

Post by formerly_proven »

dopa42365 wrote: post #14

New Edge supports it, if you have the h265 extension from the microsoft store (cmd "start ms-windows-store://pdp/?ProductId=9n4wgh0z6vhq"). It's also the only (?) browser that supports AC-3 audio. Thanks for nothing, Dolby. There's barely any content though (possibly premium VODs on Netflix etc). Bilibili (kinda like Chinese youtube) offers HEVC (and AV1) playback, if your browser supports it. Example: https://www.bi…

> In general it's kind of a moot point by now, just go with AV1.

You don't always get to decide. E.g. IP cameras will generally support both h.264 and h.265 these days, with HEVC doing vastly better than AVC, yet if that output has to go near a browser, instead of through dedicated software... SOL. Can't do anything with it. The hardware can, the software can't.

And AV1 is decode-only anyway, and only supported in the newest platforms. CPU decoding is just not a reasonable solution.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#53

Post by formerly_proven »

zepolen wrote: post #50
akersten wrote: post #40

Because the US endorses the concept of "essential patents," meaning you need to pay a licensing fee to be lawfully allowed to perform the math that transforms data into A/V content. Never to mention the two blatant issues with this, being: 1) video codecs are the exemplary "we'll patent math and there's nothing you can do about it" scam, since that's literally all a video codec is 2) a process being "essential" to a…

> that's literally all a video codec is Go on then, make a better video codec, as it's just math.

Nobody said math is simple.

Also, isn't that just AV1? (it does seem optimized for the particular niche of streaming vendors though: minimizing bandwidth at all costs)

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#54

Post by drmpeg »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #45
akersten wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you can instruct a computer to do is just math, yes. "Instructions on how to use the math" is, unsurprisingly, also more math. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like saying "everything is made of subatomic particles." Patents on processes and methods are pretty common. Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you can do better :-) But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.

B-frames (bi-directional predicted frames with a reference frame in both the past and the future) are patented. I'd say that's a process or method.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#55

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

akersten wrote: post #49
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like saying "everything is made of subatomic particles." Patents on processes and methods are pretty common. Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you can do better :-) But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.

Why should Free software advocates need to "do better" than to argue from literal first principles? Fourier could call his transform a "process" all he wants, but that does not make it patentable. So yes, "oh, math."

These files have carefully constructed format though. To read and write the patented format goes beyond patenting math. I think cmrdporcupine was getting at something.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#57

Post by alex_smart »

akersten wrote: post #43
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, is a video codec really just "math"? There's a binary payload description and algorithms involved for applying said math as well. I'm no expert in the field, so I'm actually asking in good faith here...

Everything you can instruct a computer to do is just math, yes. "Instructions on how to use the math" is, unsurprisingly, also more math. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

I don't quite understand how you do not recognize that that is a strong argument against your position.

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#59

Post by alex_smart »

akersten wrote: post #49
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like saying "everything is made of subatomic particles." Patents on processes and methods are pretty common. Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you can do better :-) But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.

Why should Free software advocates need to "do better" than to argue from literal first principles? Fourier could call his transform a "process" all he wants, but that does not make it patentable. So yes, "oh, math."

First principles is fine, but where is the argument?

Re: Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?

#60

Post by lanstin »

bush-bby wrote: post #16
rasz wrote: post #10

Because Fuck Patents.

Stupid question but… why?

1. The software patent examination process is pretty broken - a lot of companies try to patent everything without regard to is it obvious or innovative so if they get sued for patent violations they can counter sue; the patent examiners for whatever reason (law, lack of expertise, lack of staffing) keep approving patents for software that is obvious not-innovate normal state of the art things) then all of a sudden people can't use linked lists or whatever.

2. The idea of patenting algorithms themselves seems to fly in the face of free speech. An algorithm is a disembodied mathematical thing, and not a device for selling. The same logic that allowed PGP to be exported as a book despite export laws would seem to apply to patens on algorithms.

3. An industry that is harmful to the free development and operation of business has sprung up where firms (that don't do anything economically or socially productive) buy a lot of patents up and then file nuisance law suits to get revenue streams for their investors.

(Disclaimer I am the inventor on a couple patents; I had prepared my notes and list of innovations on the systems involved for the meeting with the lawyer filing the patent, and the discussion never got to any of the innovations involved, so there is no way that the patents were awarded for innovation.)

Post reply on HN