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

Google added HEVC support in Chrome

bitmovin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#41

Post by chrisseaton »

shmerl wrote: post #38
LeoPanthera wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability. I actually think the truth is the exact reverse. HEVC has easy-to-license patent pools. A couple of clicks and done. The patent situation surrounding AV1 is complex. It claims to be a free format but multiple entities claim patents that cover it. A submarine patent lawsuit seems likely.

Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them. But guaranteed patent leeching applies only to HEVC. So HEVC has only downsides, no upsides in comparison.

If you've paid for HEVC you can say 'hey, I tried to do the right thing'. If you don't pay for AV1 it looks like you were trying to avoid doing the right thing.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#42

Post by shmerl »

m463 wrote: post #39
shmerl wrote: post #31

What's the point? No one is using it on the Web and if anyone will try to use it commercially, they'll be eaten by patent trolls like MPEG-LA. Google might afford shelling out money to those trolls to add it to the browser, but not everyone is Google. So it's basically DOA. Did anything change about that recently? > Great feature, but where is the necessary hype!? There is surely no need for any hype for dead end tec…

I think apple uses HEVC and HEIF in their ios camera roll

Apple being the culprit doesn't surprise me. But didn't they back AV1 and AOM? So why are they causing this problem now?

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#43

Post by LeoPanthera »

shmerl wrote: post #38
LeoPanthera wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability. I actually think the truth is the exact reverse. HEVC has easy-to-license patent pools. A couple of clicks and done. The patent situation surrounding AV1 is complex. It claims to be a free format but multiple entities claim patents that cover it. A submarine patent lawsuit seems likely.

Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them. But guaranteed patent leeching applies only to HEVC. So HEVC has only downsides, no upsides in comparison.

> Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them.

Frankly, I don't believe this, if only because HEVC has been around for much longer, and if this was going to happen, it already would have.

The patent pool situation is a little messy, as there are two possible pools, but given how ubiquitous the codec is now, most companies seem to be figuring it out.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#44

Post by shmerl »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #43
shmerl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them. But guaranteed patent leeching applies only to HEVC. So HEVC has only downsides, no upsides in comparison.

> Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them. Frankly, I don't believe this, if only because HEVC has been around for much longer, and if this was going to happen, it already would have. The patent pool situation is a little messy, as there are two possible pools, but given how ubiquitous the codec is now, most companies seem to be figuring it out.

> Frankly, I don't believe this

You can't prove the opposite anyway. Whole "submarine patent" thing is just a speculative fear. You can't quantify it. So it applies to both in case someone has paranoia. But as above, in case of HEVC it's complemented with guaranteed protection racket fees for the likes of MPEG-LA. So HEVC is worse in the end.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#46

Post by svnpenn »

favorited wrote: post #36
svnpenn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HEVC with Widevine DRM is not supported This isn't true at all. True, HEVC doesn't support Box level encryption like MP4 does, but nothing is stopping anyone from just AES encrypting an entire fragment, as has been used for years with HLSe. The fact that MP4 uses box level encryption is one of the stupidest tech-related things I have ever seen. It forces anyone who wants to decrypt (or encrypt) to write a full MP4…

> It forces anyone who wants to decrypt (or encrypt) to write a full MP4 parser MP4 is seriously one of the easiest binary formats to parse, and even if you couldn't use an existing parser it would probably be the simplest part of whatever you were actually building.

> it would probably be the simplest part of whatever you were actually building

Unless you've written a Widevine client, downloaded from DASH, parsed MP4, decrypted MP4 samples, then reassembled the decrypted fragments, then you're really not in a position to be making this claim. I have done all the above, and the MP4 parsing was by far the most difficult part of the process, and that includes parsing Protocol Buffers for use with Widevine. The sheer volume of different box types is what makes it difficult. Over 100 types, see for yourself:

https://godocs.io/github.com/edgeware/mp4ff/mp4

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#47

Post by shmerl »

chrisseaton wrote: post #41
shmerl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submarine patent lawsuits have the same probability for both of them. But guaranteed patent leeching applies only to HEVC. So HEVC has only downsides, no upsides in comparison.

If you've paid for HEVC you can say 'hey, I tried to do the right thing'. If you don't pay for AV1 it looks like you were trying to avoid doing the right thing.

That sounds like "if you paid your racketeer, you can expect you'll be OK". However tomorrow you can get an additional racketeer to the first and both will demand payment then. First won't care to protect you from the second. Unlike mob protection racket they aren't exclusive.

The right thing here is use something that doesn't have a default protection racket attached.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#48

Post by crazygringo »

paxys wrote: post #27

The word "quietly" should be banned from all tech headlines. What should Google have done? Launched a $10M marketing campaign to publicize this change?

How about just add it to release notes? Or mention it in the blog post for the new Chrome version?

"Quietly" fits perfectly in this case if it didn't do either of those, when it's actually a huge deal.

Re: Google added HEVC support in Chrome

#49

Post by chrisseaton »

shmerl wrote: post #47
chrisseaton wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've paid for HEVC you can say 'hey, I tried to do the right thing'. If you don't pay for AV1 it looks like you were trying to avoid doing the right thing.

That sounds like "if you paid your racketeer, you can expect you'll be OK". However tomorrow you can get an additional racketeer to the first and both will demand payment then. First won't care to protect you from the second. Unlike mob protection racket they aren't exclusive. The right thing here is use something that doesn't have a default protection racket attached.

I wasn't personally endorsing it - I was explaining how some people think.
Post reply on HN