Google added HEVC support in Chrome

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #118

girvo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh "great". Software patents were such a mistake.

Surely that depends - is this a bunch of generic and vague detail-less patents, or do they provide the actual information required to implement the thing it purports to describe. The core problem with “software patents” in the US sense is that the patent office appear to grant them by default if they are vague, only accepts specific types of pre-existing evidence that they are not new or novel, and once a patent is g…

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 4:52 AM UTC

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.

Post by olliej » Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 4:58 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #167

olliej wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn’t causing a problem in the manner you’re implying - they’ve been using those codecs for years at this point. All that’s happening here is chrome is adding support for an existing standardized format that is used by the general public in presumably sufficient amounts to warrant the complexity.

If Apple can stop using it to not proliferate it switching to AV1 by default and aren't doing it, then you can say they are part of the problem due to their size. I.e. if you meant that Google went out of the way to enable it in Chrome because Apple users produce so much content with it (because of Apple), then Apple are causing a problem. Compare it to someone who makes products that dump toxic waste in the environm…

Post by dmitriid » Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 5:32 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #94

mroche wrote: post #10

On one hand, that's great for anyone watching HEVC content in Chrome. On the other, I'd prefer to not see further adoption of HEVC and instead see increased deployment of VP9 and AV1 wherever possible. Let MPEG-LA and the other HEVC patent pools+holders... well I'll leave the rest to your imagination. Future looking, no one should even touch VVC/H.266. Unfortunately the above rant does not address the gap in hardware…

I hope that AV1 doesn't get the same treatment as Opus though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33158475 Royalty-free matters less when it turns out these bad actors can punish people for it. It's a little worrying frankly.

Post by Retr0id » Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 5:39 AM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #132

ComputerGuru wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your assessment. The reference to “box” makes me think it was definitely the container. I also don’t see the codec called MP4, it’s usually spelled out MPEG-4.

".mp4" is just a file extension, the source of the colloquial name for the container. But both the container and the codec are named MPEG-4 and both are colloquially called "MP4." "Box level" is apparently referring to types of cryptography, "S-boxes are non-linear transformations of a few input bits that provide confusion and P-boxes simply shuffle the input bits around to provide diffusion"[1] The basic function of…