Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

> Uptake of the open-video codec AV1 has been slow, with major video providers waiting for broader device support.

The people involved in AV1 had a software decode plan B that has worked better than most of them hoped.

If you combine that with encoding choice based on software decode impact, most big players have started with software rollouts, but still seen gains.

"You need hardware support for a codec" is often the same kind of delaying tactic as "renewables need storage". You do both in parallel, not enter an infinite loop where you don't do either because the other isn't complete yet.

View on HN

This is just lazy and risk-averse management. With the list of companies behind AV1 is certainly looked like the codec of the future several years ago. While predicting the future can be dicey, switching to AV1 should have been fairly obvious. Everyone waiting to see if it will actually take off has simply delayed the takeoff. Software decode has been around for years, so content providers could have encoded and used that for desktop users, or even people on mobile - half of them will blame their devices when the battery doesn't last.

The entrenched interests are adverse to wide adoption of a royalty-free codec. Even some of the parties involved with AV1 have a conflict of interest as they are patent holders for other technologies that would exclude AV1's wider usage.

> The entrenched interests are adverse to wide adoption of a royalty-free codec.

I see this claim again and again on HN, but in reality "entrenched interests" ship with support for lots of royalty-free audio, video, and image formats.

The reality is that AV1 is just not ready for prime-time yet. As TFA notes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, and few companies have stepped up to be among the first chickens.

If this rumor is correct, the first phones with Qualcomm-powered AV1 support will ship in 2023. At that point, expect the AV1 IP wars to begin. AV1's future depends on how that goes.

> If this rumor is correct, the first phones with Qualcomm-powered AV1 support will ship in 2023. At that point, expect the AV1 IP wars to begin. AV1's future depends on how that goes.

Intel added AV1 decoding to their onchip GPU's in 2020 [0]. Why didn't it begin then?

[0] https://github.com/intel/media-driver/releases/tag/intel-med...

> Intel added AV1 decoding to their onchip GPU's in 2020 [0]. Why didn't it begin then?

I don't have any special insight into Sisvel's strategy, but I'd guess there are a few factors. This assumes that Intel isn't already a licensee — Sisvel has 32 AV1/VP9 licensees last I looked, and I believe only a few are public.

- Very little content is delivered as AV1, and where it is used it's not exclusive, so content distributors could easily kill Sisvel's golden goose today. They can't move too soon.

- I imagine Sisvel is happy to focus on low-hanging fruit while AV1's popularity (presumably) soars. They'll continue to build their stable of voluntary licensees until AV1 use hits a tipping point where the ROI for harder targets makes sense. The day Apple announces support for AV1, Sisvel will be celebrating harder than HN'ers.

- When push comes to shove, I'd guess that Sisvel will most likely build a start building legal wins by going after smaller companies first, then work their way up to AOM members.

Sisvel needs AV1 to be successful in order to extract maximum revenue. Qualcomm's support increases the odds that will happen, but it doesn't guarantee it. That necessary success probably happens a minimum of 2 years after broad device support.

> switching to AV1 should have been fairly obvious

Things are moving, but not quickly.

VLC shipped an optimized x86 software decoder very recently, but Handbrake has yet to find an open source software encoder in good enough shape that they can add it for general consumer use.

https://github.com/HandBrake/HandBrake/issues/457

Hardware support for a codec is a business decision decision, it doesn’t require a tech/physics breakthrough as renewables storage at city and country scale does, it’s not remotely comparable.

Renewable storage is also a business decision? Like we know how to build enough storage, it's just very expensive using current technology. In the limit, you can just make a lot of these:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-...

That article is pretty confusing, since it only talks about the power of those batteries, not how much energy they can store. Or is it confusing MWh with MW?

I don't necessarily vouch for this particular article. My point is merely that grid scale battery is no longer a question of technology, but money.

> renewables storage at city and country scale does

That's also a business decision, just with a bigger number attached. And hitherto it's been far cheaper to use gas. But that's now a "conflict mineral".

Nickel is a conflict material now too.

Luckily there exist lithium iron phosphate batteries

Reply on news.ycombinator.com