Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe this would incentive Apple into supporting these formats. For vp9, it seems to me there isn't any good excuse for not supporting it.



> For vp9, it seems to me there isn't any good excuse for not supporting it.

Exporting video formats is expensive: there's a lot of optimization work to have a high-quality battery-friendly implementation, decode hardware has to be licensed & updated, and they have to do security hardening and support every time they add a new format. If they're already working on AV1, why double the cost to add support for an older format which is almost never used as the only option?


It’s not like Apple can’t bear this cost. VP9 has existed since 2012, Android has supported the format since version 4.4 released in 2013. AV1 was then unheard of. Surely they weren’t working on it then.

VP9 is still interesting today since there are many devices out there that decode it and will never decode AV1 with hardware.

I think the reason is not technical. Apple has patents for MPEG formats, I think they wanted to push these formats instead. By not supporting VP8/VP9, they force(d) everyone to support their formats.

Now, if I want to make a video call with someone with an Apple device, I'll probably need, if I live in a place where software patents apply, to pay a license to decode/encode an MPEG format where the royalty-free VP9 would have done the job. Worse, I probably indirectly pay these fees (anyway) when I buy devices with support for MPEG formats, even if I live at some place were software patents don't apply.


> It’s not like Apple can’t bear this cost. VP9 has existed since 2012, Android has supported the format since version 4.4 released in 2013. AV1 was then unheard of. Surely they weren’t working on it then.

4.4 shipped with software support, which meant that it was slow and chewed battery like it was going out of style. You had to wait until around 2015-2016 for hardware decoding support and around 2017 for encoding support before it became competitive.

Even then, however, there's a bigger problem: what really matters is the amount of unique video recorded in VP9, which even Google doesn't seem to do. Apple's users almost never run into the situation where they miss out on something because their device doesn't support VP9. Since the entire industry is moving to the newer AV1 format, the question is whether it's worth taking on the long-term security & support commitment of supporting an old-new format or simply putting those resources into something which will actually replace H.264 as a universally-supported format.

> By not supporting VP8/VP9, they force(d) everyone to support their formats.

This is trying too hard to construct a conspiracy theory: VP8 had no advantages over H.264 and arrived years later. VP9 had no significant advantages over H.265 and arrived years later. The only significant source of original content in either one is WebRTC chat, which is a pretty limited hook to justify a major {development,support,security,patent risk} commitment.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: