You said this on the HEVC for Chrome thread, and even now I still don't fully agree with it. While some of these solutions may be technically superior in certain aspects, that doesn't mean everyone will drop what they're doing and implement support in hardware and software today because the folks managing these codecs (aka the patent pools) make life miserable for anyone trying to do so. Why bother with vague terms, definitions, royalties, and risk of lawsuit when you can have a solution that works nearly or just as well without all those problems?
AV1 is a great video codec and when paired with a modern software toolset (like SVT-AV1) or, for today, latest gen hardware it's not really an issue. The age of the ecosystem is really the only practical drawback, with a lack of generally efficient software and widespread hardware support that other codecs like HEVC have had for several years. Opus is also a great audio codec that has seen successful adoption across streaming platforms and the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Opus, AAC-LC, and MP3 without blatant artifacting.
I have no problems with the technologies you mentioned themselves, they are all amazingly advanced and can open a lot of doors for high quality, efficient data transfer and media consumption. But the tech is only half the story; if you have people acting as ridiculous gatekeepers then there's no use complaining about the lack of adoption as it's falling on the ears of people who only care about one thing: money. The patent pools are looking to make money, the implementers are looking to save money. Take a guess which one end-user consumers are going to end up with most of the time?
Comments
You said this on the HEVC for Chrome thread, and even now I still don't fully agree with it. While some of these solutions may be technically superior in certain aspects, that doesn't mean everyone will drop what they're doing and implement support in hardware and software today because the folks managing these codecs (aka the patent pools) make life miserable for anyone trying to do so. Why bother with vague terms, definitions, royalties, and risk of lawsuit when you can have a solution that works nearly or just as well without all those problems?
AV1 is a great video codec and when paired with a modern software toolset (like SVT-AV1) or, for today, latest gen hardware it's not really an issue. The age of the ecosystem is really the only practical drawback, with a lack of generally efficient software and widespread hardware support that other codecs like HEVC have had for several years. Opus is also a great audio codec that has seen successful adoption across streaming platforms and the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Opus, AAC-LC, and MP3 without blatant artifacting.
I have no problems with the technologies you mentioned themselves, they are all amazingly advanced and can open a lot of doors for high quality, efficient data transfer and media consumption. But the tech is only half the story; if you have people acting as ridiculous gatekeepers then there's no use complaining about the lack of adoption as it's falling on the ears of people who only care about one thing: money. The patent pools are looking to make money, the implementers are looking to save money. Take a guess which one end-user consumers are going to end up with most of the time?