[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Why does nobody support h.265/HEVC anymore?
It seems that right now there is no browser that supports
h.265/HEVC _even on hardware that can decode it_ - "Old Edge" used
to, but "New Edge" does not. Neither Chrome nor Firefox support it
(actually, both of those refuse to use any form of hardware
decoding at all on my Windows box, only Edge uses it for VPx and
h.264 - and of course every media player). The only exception is
Apple with Safari. Why is this? h.265 can do a lot better than
h.264 in some scenarios, but certainly isn't worse. And why, oh
why, is debugging hardware video acceleration still such a
nightmare, even on Windows? Firefox doesn't even seem to have it in
about:support any more! And why is hardware video acceleration
_only_ a problem with browsers? I 've never had any kind of problem
with it with any media player, regardless of OS. It just works. But
browsers - it seems to never work OOTB. Except for Edge,
apparently. Which I _thought_ was just a Chromium reskin with MS
tracking.
Author : formerly_proven
Score : 95 points
Date : 2022-05-09 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
| rasz wrote:
| Because Fuck Patents.
| bush-bby wrote:
| Stupid question but... why?
| midasuni wrote:
| They hold back progress and prevent things like h265 being
| adopted
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| I am not the OP, but here is my take. In practical sense,
| because they do more harm than good. In logical sense, IMO,
| IP (patents, copy rights etc.) is not `property`, so it
| cannot be owned. Thus it can be copied indefinitely and used
| once it is exposed. World would be a better place without
| this nonsense.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
| bozhark wrote:
| They serve unintended purposes better than their intended
| purpose.
|
| There's something better and no one cares to try.
| lanstin wrote:
| 1. The software patent examination process is pretty broken -
| a lot of companies try to patent everything without regard to
| is it obvious or innovative so if they get sued for patent
| violations they can counter sue; the patent examiners for
| whatever reason (law, lack of expertise, lack of staffing)
| keep approving patents for software that is obvious not-
| innovate normal state of the art things) then all of a sudden
| people can't use linked lists or whatever.
|
| 2. The idea of patenting algorithms themselves seems to fly
| in the face of free speech. An algorithm is a disembodied
| mathematical thing, and not a device for selling. The same
| logic that allowed PGP to be exported as a book despite
| export laws would seem to apply to patens on algorithms.
|
| 3. An industry that is harmful to the free development and
| operation of business has sprung up where firms (that don't
| do anything economically or socially productive) buy a lot of
| patents up and then file nuisance law suits to get revenue
| streams for their investors.
|
| (Disclaimer I am the inventor on a couple patents; I had
| prepared my notes and list of innovations on the systems
| involved for the meeting with the lawyer filing the patent,
| and the discussion never got to any of the innovations
| involved, so there is no way that the patents were awarded
| for innovation.)
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| > the patent examiners for whatever reason (law, lack of
| expertise, lack of staffing) keep approving patents
|
| Relative works for over 10 years as patent examiner, now a
| team manager, for EU: they are ordered to approve as many
| patents as possible. Having more patents is considered
| progress and innovation, more patents approved is a KPI.
| Unless they are ridiculous or illegal, they have to approve
| it and it is the job of people that are affected to fight
| to cancel the patents.
| Vladimof wrote:
| probably a patent issue... I love x265 for the video file size
| and a decent video quality
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Back in the DVD era there was a conscious attempt to converge
| between the PC industry and consumer electronics.
|
| Since then (when they decided that Blu-Ray drives weren't going
| to be standard in PC) there has been a decoupling. HEVC is a
| consumer electronics standard, the PC industry is going towards
| VP9, AV1 and other royalty free codecs.
|
| Up until HEVC most codecs had one patent pool you could pay a
| royalty to and be good. HEVC had the problems that two entities
| claim to control essential patents
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Advance
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It also occurred with 4K Blu Ray, which was a real pain in
| the neck on PC requiring Intel SGX, Intel Secure Media Path,
| and a billion other DRM things. Then Intel removed SGX in
| 11th generation onward, and the Blu Ray developers have
| basically decided that being unable to play 4K Blu Ray on
| modern PCs is apparently just fine and haven't done anything
| to fix that.
|
| To this day, the only _official_ way to play 4K Blu Ray on a
| PC is to get a 10th gen Intel and play back using Integrated
| Graphics using one of the internal drives made by a drive
| manufacturer who was utterly shafted by this nonsense.
|
| (It's got to hurt more though that 4K Blu Ray's new and
| improved DRM was, despite all this, broken less than a year
| after release. If you are a drive maker, knowing your drives
| are useless on modern PCs because of broken DRM that Blu Ray
| developers still insist is necessary must be the most
| infuriating thing ever.)
| philg_jr wrote:
| So grateful for the developer of MakeMKV.
| blibble wrote:
| we've had DRM'ed media for 20 years and people are still
| surprised that there's a reasonable chance of being shafted
| if they invest in the ecosystem?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| To be fair USB sticks fill part of the removable media
| niche.
| resfirestar wrote:
| Actually it's not just browsers, HEVC can't be hardware decoded
| out of the box on Windows applications that rely on Media
| Foundation, you have to open the Microsoft store and pay $0.99
| for the privilege of using those codecs.
| JDW1023 wrote:
| I think there are a few patches that can enable HEVC hardware
| decoding with chromium. Though I am a firefox user so I didn't
| test whether these patches works or not.
| https://github.com/StaZhu/enable-chromium-hevc-hardware-deco...
| marcodiego wrote:
| AV1.
| teekert wrote:
| This is also behind heic? Right? Man what a pain, I love hdr and
| Live Photos but anywhere outside the Apple ecosystem it is pain.
| I really wouldn't mind paying some dollars for some codecs to
| just be able to see my pics in Windows, Linux, Nextcloud etc.
| floatboth wrote:
| > Windows
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/heif-image-extensions/9pmm...
| + https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/hevc-video-
| extensions/9nmz...
|
| > Linux
|
| https://github.com/strukturag/libheif (includes gdk-pixbuf
| loader and nautilus thumbnailer)
| projektfu wrote:
| Windows 11 appears to read HEIC in the photos app.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| With the required codec from the store, yes.
| dopa42365 wrote:
| New Edge supports it, if you have the h265 extension from the
| microsoft store (cmd "start ms-windows-
| store://pdp/?ProductId=9n4wgh0z6vhq"). It's also the only (?)
| browser that supports AC-3 audio. Thanks for nothing, Dolby.
|
| There's barely any content though (possibly premium VODs on
| Netflix etc).
|
| Bilibili (kinda like Chinese youtube) offers HEVC (and AV1)
| playback, if your browser supports it. Example:
| https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Q44y1372Q
|
| In general it's kind of a moot point by now, just go with AV1.
| babypuncher wrote:
| My problem with AV1 is that hardware support for it is far from
| ubiquitous. I can load up a file I encoded with x265 on any of
| my devices from the last 6 years and be sure that it will play
| back smoothly without eating battery. The only device in my
| house with hardware AV1 support is the RTX 3080 in my desktop.
| So for the time being, I encode all my blu-ray rips with x265.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| My GTX980 did not support HEVC decoding in hardware, and as a
| result it played like crap on my system. The Nvidia cards
| have only supported it since the GTX 10 series. That isn't
| very old IMHO.
| Sunspark wrote:
| It's odd that the browser supports AC-3 but the MS video player
| does not unless you pay for the codec, while all the other
| video players include it.
|
| Going with AV1 is not an option for the vast majority of people
| as it requires hardware support. If you try using AV1 on a
| computer that didn't come with a hardware decoder for it, your
| machine will crawl.
|
| I force h264 in YouTube for this reason instead of using VP9.
| cesarb wrote:
| > If you try using AV1 on a computer that didn't come with a
| hardware decoder for it, your machine will crawl.
|
| My computer doesn't have a hardware decoder for AV1 (as shown
| by "vainfo"), yet AV1 videos play perfectly fine on it, both
| within the browser (including on Youtube) and outside it.
| Playing the AV1 demo
| (https://demo.bitmovin.com/public/firefox/av1/) on the
| browser at its maximum resolution uses only around half of
| the CPU.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > In general it's kind of a moot point by now, just go with
| AV1.
|
| You don't always get to decide. E.g. IP cameras will generally
| support both h.264 and h.265 these days, with HEVC doing vastly
| better than AVC, yet if that output has to go near a browser,
| instead of through dedicated software... SOL. Can't do anything
| with it. The hardware can, the software can't.
|
| And AV1 is decode-only anyway, and only supported in the newest
| platforms. CPU decoding is just not a reasonable solution.
| m3galinux wrote:
| It's not just browsers. One popular Windows-based video
| surveillance platform has hardware decode support for H264,
| but it's software only for H265; that's on both Windows
| clients and Android mobile. That means your H264 cameras show
| up instantly but H265 takes a few seconds per stream, and too
| many of them on one screen means you're skipping frames. At
| least two companies I installed these for decided to double
| their storage instead of taking the perceived UI performance
| hit.
| cesarb wrote:
| Are you _sure_ it 's "not just browsers"? With the current
| popularity of embedded browser engines, there's a good
| chance that these clients are actually browsers in
| disguise, or at least that they embed a browser for the
| frame which shows the camera streams.
| anaisbetts wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is the case. Current Edge Dev
| (102.0.1245.3) reports "No" for HEVC, even with the extension
| installed. Old Edge based on EdgeHTML/Spartan would indeed play
| HEVC content
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Can someone help me understand why my windows 10 laptop with the
| latest VLC can't run x265 video files, but my windows 10 desktop
| with the latest VLC can? My desktop definitely runs circles
| around my laptop, but I'm not very well versed on video tech, so
| I haven't been able to figure out what the issue is on my laptop.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| Because the GPU in your laptop does not support x265 hardware
| acceleration. You need and intel 7th gen or newer for 10bit
| h.265. 6th gen only supports 8bit.
|
| AMD APU's started getting h.265 support around the same time.
| paulmd wrote:
| FYI (not just you but generally): one tool that is very useful
| in this situation is called "DXVA Checker", it checks the
| DirectX video acceleration modules that are available for the
| current hardware/driver and then you can compare that against
| the file ("codec information" in VLC) and see what's going on.
|
| I would hazard a guess that your laptop probably doesn't have a
| hardware H265, or that the H265 file you're using doesn't match
| up to the decoder module (eg 8 vs 10 bit, or color space, etc).
| It is then falling back to software-decode or hybrid mode, and
| then it doesn't have enough oomph to do the file.
|
| https://bluesky-soft.com/en/DXVAChecker.html
| scrlk wrote:
| What CPU and GPU do you have in each machine?
|
| Low powered laptops without HEVC hardware decoding will
| probably struggle.
| ZYinMD wrote:
| I'm under the impression that VP9 is in the same generation with
| H265 (in terms of video size and encoding/decoding performance)
| but VP9 is free and open, so as a consumer, I'll happily accept
| if everybody just uses VP9.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Another question is why don't browsers support MKV container
| format?
|
| From an arbitrary search "The Matroska project is supported by a
| non-profit organization and is a fork of the Multimedia Container
| Format. It was first announced to the public at the end of 2002
| and is a completely royalty-free open standard that's free for
| both private and commercial use."
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| HEVC has a long and complicated history.
|
| With H.264, it was easy - one patent pool. Any questions? Contact
| MPEG LA. How much did it cost? About $2 or so per device, no
| problem. Did you spend more than (IIRC) $14 million on licensing
| each year? It's free past that point. As for open-source software
| like Firefox, Cisco actually struck a deal to pay _all the
| royalties_ if you used their OpenH264 decoder (they needed H.264
| to be widely supported for WebRTC), so Firefox and other software
| was able to use the binary of that and have Cisco covering the
| royalties for them.
|
| With H.265, everything splintered. There are _three_ patent
| pools: MPEG LA, Access Advance (formerly known as HEVC Advance),
| and Velos Media. Between them, you have to pay royalties on the
| hardware, the software, _and_ a royalty per-item created past a
| certain point. Some had royalty caps, others did not and would
| rack up royalties indefinitely and unpredictably high. Some
| patent pools had you licensing patents available in other pools,
| so you were paying twice for the same patents. And some major
| patent holders (such as Technicolor) weren 't in any pools, so
| you needed to approach them manually and hash out a deal on your
| own which could have as favorable or unfavorable terms as they
| pleased. Also, Cisco (not surprisingly) said they weren't paying
| the royalties for an OpenH265, as it was only a ~30% improvement
| for a _exponential_ increase in royalties, _easily several times
| or more_ as much as H264. Bloody hell.
|
| So, it shouldn't be a surprise that Windows decided, screw it,
| you're paying $0.99 if you want HEVC, but we're not supporting it
| with every Windows license because that could easily cost
| hundreds of millions of dollars because of the lack of caps.
| Apple used their sheer market power to get HEVC on all their
| devices mainly for HEIC (HEVC for images), which reduces storage
| space needed for photos and iCloud costs, and once you have it on
| every iPhone, adding macOS is cheap. Presumably this is because
| Apple struck a deal with the patent holders individually and
| didn't need to accept the ludicrous patent pool terms. Did I
| mention that Access Advance alone operates their patent pool at
| an absurd 40% margin for its directors? (Yes, 40% of Access
| Advance's pool royalty, which is already the highest of any pool
| by far, is pure profit for the pool itself rather than going to
| patent holders. It's asinine!)
|
| You might wonder why in the world H.265 licensing fell apart so
| badly. The answer is, well, streaming. H.264 got its first
| release in 2003, before YouTube or internet video was really a
| thing. HEVC was released in 2013 and patent holders were eager to
| extract rent from Netflix (distribution royalties), PC Makers
| (hardware royalties), Microsoft and Apple (software royalties),
| content producers (per-title royalties), basically everyone
| involved had a royalty somewhere because they thought HEVC was
| going to be the best thing ever for reducing streaming costs and
| people would pay for it. They didn't.
|
| The only real place H.265 lives on is in 4K Blu-ray... _and_
| Next-Gen TV / ATSC 3.0 which is going to allegedly hopefully
| replace ATSC 1.0 for OTA Antenna-based TV Transmissions someday.
| Though, unlike the first digital transition, it's not mandated by
| the FCC and it also requires licensing HEVC, Dolby AC-4, and a
| billion other standards so... maybe it will die of patent
| exhaustion.
| MikusR wrote:
| On Windows there is the free version for supported hardware
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31318629
| [deleted]
| floatboth wrote:
| h.265 also lives on in open source software other than
| browsers. VideoLAN has been ignoring the whole licensing
| disaster because "Neither French law nor European conventions
| recognize software as patentable" for ages :P
| Conan_Kudo wrote:
| The European Union almost certainly does, that's why it's
| allowed in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom
| (pre-Brexit and post-Brexit).
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| With H.264 they retained the right to renegotiate the terms
| every 5 years. It was only after Theora and VP8 got some
| traction that they pledged to not alter the terms for the rest
| of the patent term.
|
| AAC audio hit the exact same problem. Apple refused to support
| it until they dropped some of the more ridiculous licencing
| fees.
|
| Even physical DVD players got shafted by MPEG patent prices
| becoming a significant share of the entire device costs in
| later years.
|
| It's always been a scam. It always will be a scam. Exactly like
| the social networks that are so open and friendly till they've
| got you locked in. That's the whole business model.
|
| HEVC lived and died by licence fees.
| jl6 wrote:
| > The only real place H.265 lives on ...
|
| Surely Apple devices count as a real place? I expect there are
| a lot more iDevices than 4K Blu-Ray players.
| dylan604 wrote:
| VR took to HEVC from the get go just because they needed
| every savings in filesize that could be found. We were
| running HEVC videos on Android well before iPhones could do
| it. So it's beyond Apple devices too
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| Because people prefer to destroy ecology and user experience than
| pay one symbolic dollar for a lifetime license
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| The other problem is like competing codecs (vpx comes to mind),
| they all require much more resources for little gain, both for
| encoding and decoding - even in hardware vp9 requires more than
| h264 (and 5), patents are not the only reason.
|
| Also with a million competing codecs which do you choose....
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| I have not seen evidence that hardware accelerates h265
| decoding consume that much more energy. Generally the
| complexity increase is biased toward the encoder
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| H.265 requires getting a license from at least 2 patent pools[0],
| and who knows how many other patents are out there waiting to get
| sued over.
|
| If you want a new cross platform video codec, check out AV1.[1]
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P...
|
| [1] https://aomedia.org/av1/
| formerly_proven wrote:
| But if an application merely uses the graphic's drivers API to
| decode a stream, presumably the GPU vendor (and therefore the
| buyer) already paid for those licensing costs? Otherwise the
| hardware wouldn't support h265, right?
| mimsee wrote:
| Perhaps there are software patents involved in the codecs and
| a license for those is different from the hardware ones
| galad87 wrote:
| Right, but neither Google neither Mozilla wants to support it
| even if they don't need to pay a cent.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| They'd both have supported it if the codec was offered
| freely to all users for any purpose.
|
| But it wasn't, so they'd be letting the entire internet be
| held to ransom if they supported it.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| That's actually not entirely clear to me. Which is another
| reason to avoid H265 altogether....
|
| I mean, even if say Chrome started using the hardware
| decoders, do you think someone from the MPEG-LA would
| _refrain_ to sue Google since "they're just using the Windows
| API"? It's already not rare to have to pay both for the
| hardware _and_ the software in this world.
| tomputer wrote:
| FFmpeg and VLC seem to use (lib)x265 for H.265 content.
|
| Is a license also required if the x265 codec is used? Or does
| that depend on whether the software is for commercial use?
| jasode wrote:
| _> FFmpeg and VLC seem to use (lib)x265 for H.265 content._
|
| copypaste of previous comment:
|
| The FFmpeg project does not _distribute binaries_ with
| unlicensed or illegal code. E.g. if you want ffmpeg to use
| libdvdcss for decrypting DVDs or use libfdk-aac to encode aac
| /m4a without paying license royalties to Fraunhofer, the end
| user has to download those components and _build a custom
| ffmpeg binary on their own_. No legitimate website will host
| ffmpeg built with the "illegal/unlicensed" libraries. E.g.
| When the popular Zeranoe website hosted ffmpeg executables
| for download, it was only built with the free GNU components
| and was missing x265.
|
| The VLC project says they can include libdvdcss because they
| are a French company instead of American. E.g. The USA-based
| Microsoft removes DVD playback from Windows 8 but France-
| based VLC does not: https://www.zdnet.com/article/if-vlc-can-
| ship-a-free-dvd-pla...
| pornel wrote:
| ffmpeg/x265 don't own the patents, so their license has no
| right to grant you them.
|
| Beware that using ffmpeg/x265 may be illegal if you're in a
| country that recognizes software patents. You need to pay
| patent fees even if you wrote the software 100% yourself. You
| need to pay even if you independently invented the same
| algorithms later than the patent was filed.
|
| To quote Carmack:
|
| > _" The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out
| to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up
| with a program that could not be legally used because someone
| else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed
| for a patent on it is horrifying."_
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| _Three_ patent pools, and some major companies that you need
| patents for aren 't in any of them. Also unlike H.264, there
| was _no limit_ to how much you could spend on licensing every
| year. And that was only the beginning of the disaster.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fi...
| msbarnett wrote:
| The licenses have already been paid for the hardware
| implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to
| leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on
| laptops).
| zamadatix wrote:
| Chrome leverages hardware decoding in general it just doesn't
| support h.265 at all, hardware or software.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Let's just say HEVC Patent Pools got greedy and demanded a
| per-software license, either paid by Windows (who decided
| not to pay) or by Chrome (who also decided not to pay).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3F
| i...
| jitl wrote:
| Chrome and Mozilla both want their competitor format AV1 to
| "win".
|
| Plus, partial support is a burden - one of the patent holders
| might come by and ask you to _prove_ you didn't accidentally
| violate one of their patents while fastidiously only using
| that approved hardware. I think there's a lot of lawyer risk
| there below the waterline.
| floatboth wrote:
| It would also be extremely confusing to support something
| with _only_ hardware decoding. People running supported
| hardware would start saying things like "Firefox supports
| HEVC" which would sound plainly wrong to someone with
| unsupported hardware.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| On the other hand, basically all platforms of the last
| few years support hardware decoding of HEVC. nVidia does,
| Intel does, AMD does... so pretty much for every PC made
| in the last ~six or so years:
|
| - You paid the royalties for HEVC, possibly multiple
| times
|
| - It can almost certainly encode and decode HEVC without
| breaking a sweat
|
| - You (practically) can't use it ("if it's not on the
| web, it's dead")
| kfarr wrote:
| Yes a decade ago this was the Firefox approach to h264 --
| leverage OS/hardware support if available. Can confirm
| horrible experience for devs and viewers
| devwastaken wrote:
| I don't buy the patent argument. AV1 is not unique, it would
| not be hard to find some similarities in the math and argue
| infringement of one of tens of thousands of patents these
| companies sit on. The companies simply don't want to upset
| the largest tech companies, though apple already buys from
| them.
| themerone wrote:
| The AOM foundation has spent millions on legal reviews.
| There is always a chance of something slipping through, but
| that could happpen with any technology. Someone unknown
| company could come forward with a claim that h.265
| infringes on a patent.
| znpy wrote:
| The correct way to see this is probably that licenses have
| already been patented for the existing implementations, and
| dropping support for future ones means money saving.
| rasz wrote:
| 2009 https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/lenovo-sued-
| mpeg-2-patent...
|
| 2019 https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-
| stories/cases/nokia-and...
|
| lenovo had enough in 2020 https://www.theregister.com/2020/12
| /10/lenovo_seeks_to_rende...
| babypuncher wrote:
| This explains why browsers do not include their own software
| decoder, but they should not need a license to use the decoders
| provided by the host platform.
| creshal wrote:
| - Neither Linux nor Windows provide one, due to licensing
| costs
|
| - Most browsers do not deem it worth the risk of relying on
| host software decoders, as the plug&play infrastructure
| behind them usually translates into "nobody feels responsible
| for patching anything" which translates into incalculable
| vulnerabilities
|
| That leaves MacOS (why bother when Safari exists), iOS
| (dito), and Android (why bother when Android users don't
| spend money), and trying to use hardware codecs without
| stepping on patents enough to make lawyers smell blood (why
| bother).
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Microsoft provides a separate h265 codec you can buy in the
| Microsoft store: https://www.microsoft.com/en-
| us/p/uitbreidingen-voor-hevc-vi...
|
| Some hardware comes with the codec pre-purchased (my laptop
| does). I don't think I've ever heard of anyone buying a
| codec in the MS Store, though.
|
| I think most Android phones come with HEVC support. Mine
| did, anyway; I suppose it's up to the vendor to choose if
| they want to support it. Apps like VLC will also play the
| codec just fine. My camera app even records in h.265. This
| is a phone from Xiaomi, which not exactly known for their
| great software packages and compatibility.
|
| I'm pretty sure Safari already supports h.265 because Apple
| switched to HEIF pictures while the rest of the world still
| just uses JPEGs for everything, and HEIF is pretty close to
| a single h.265 frame packaged as a picture. Not even Apple
| would be so foolish to switch default formats on their
| mobile devices and not support it across their software
| products.
|
| Browsers don't feel like paying license fees over downloads
| of their free products and I can't blame them. Mozilla's
| h.264 decoder is only published along with it because Cisco
| had reached the license fee cap (which doesn't exist for
| h.265) and they decided to use their license so that
| Firefox can play videos freely.
|
| I think Apple and physical disks formats are the only
| players heavily invested in h.265 right now. AV1 hardware
| decoding support is slowly coming along, so soon enough
| everyone can just use AV1 and be free of the proprietary
| patent bullcrap.
| jake_morrison wrote:
| Mobile support comes from the chips (SOC) that the phones
| are using. Hardware codec support is a major
| differentiating factor for mobile chips. It has a huge
| impact on power usage, e.g. decoding video or audio in
| hardware could be 10x more efficient.
|
| It's common that the manufacturer doesn't actually get a
| patent license, they get "indemnity". If someone were to
| sue you, the chip manufacturer would handle it, because
| they have their own patents and have cross-licensed with
| the others in the pool. You may have to pay the chip
| manufacturer for the indemnity in addition to the chip
| costs, i.e. "paying protection money". "That's a nice
| restaurant you have there, it would be a shame if someone
| set it on fire. We can protect you from bad people like
| that."
| cesarb wrote:
| > I think most Android phones come with HEVC support.
| Mine did, anyway; I suppose it's up to the vendor to
| choose if they want to support it.
|
| The official requirements for Android phones can be found
| on the Android CDD
| (https://source.android.com/compatibility/cdd). From a
| quick look at the CDD for Android 12, section 2.2.2 says
| that the required codecs for encoding are "H.264 AVC" and
| "VP8", and for decoding are "H.264 AVC", "H.265 HEVC,
| "MPEG-4 SP", "VP8", and "VP9". So it seems that all
| Android 12 phones will come with HEVC decoding support,
| but not necessarily encoding support. Looking at past
| CDDs, it seems that "H.263" was required for encoding and
| decoding before Android 7.0, and "H.265 HEVC" was
| required for decoding starting with Android 5.0.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| You are completely right. I have never gotten HW accel to work in
| ANY browser. It's honestly baffling that hobby project level
| video player get this to work without a hitch but Google and
| Mozilla can't. Even of decades.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| FWIW the pirate scene supports it; a lot of video release are
| H.265 (marked "x265" usually). H.264 is still more popular in
| general, particularly for TV. There's still no AV1.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| H.265 works for me in Firefox using hardware acceleration via VA-
| API.
| akersten wrote:
| Because the US endorses the concept of "essential patents,"
| meaning you need to pay a licensing fee to be lawfully allowed to
| perform the math that transforms data into A/V content.
|
| Never to mention the two blatant issues with this, being:
|
| 1) video codecs are the _exemplary_ "we'll patent math and
| there's nothing you can do about it" scam, since that's
| _literally all a video codec is_
|
| 2) a process being "essential" to a particular outcome (i.e. no
| other way to do it) was the main motivation mathematics was
| explicitly excluded from patentability in the first place, so the
| idea of "essential patents" just underlines the absurdity of the
| entire system
|
| Anyways, yearly reminder that software patents are a blight to
| innovation and a scourge on our industry, and no you won't change
| my mind.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I mean, is a video codec really just "math"? There's a binary
| payload description and algorithms involved for _applying_ said
| math as well.
|
| I'm no expert in the field, so I'm actually asking in good
| faith here...
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| The specification for the format (which is what is patented)
| describes the mathematical relationship between the binary
| payload and the uncompressed picture data. The actual
| implementation of the encoder / decoder is copyrighted and
| may also be patented, (which seems to be what you are
| alluding to), but with patent encumbered formats, the real
| issue is that the specification itself is patented.
|
| Practically this means that every encoder / decoder for
| patent encumbered formats has to have some form of licensing
| just to interact with the format even if they somehow reverse
| engineered the specification and built a cleanroom
| implementation (at least as far as I understand it, IANAL)
| akersten wrote:
| Everything you can instruct a computer to do is just math,
| yes. "Instructions on how to use the math" is,
| unsurprisingly, also more math.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda
| calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like
| saying "everything is made of subatomic particles."
|
| Patents on processes and methods are pretty common.
| Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then
| falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you
| can do better :-)
|
| But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.
| akersten wrote:
| Why should Free software advocates need to "do better"
| than to argue from literal first principles?
|
| Fourier could call his transform a "process" all he
| wants, but that does not make it patentable.
|
| So yes, "oh, math."
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Almost all inventions can be reduced to "just math",
| because after all, that's what we use to describe the
| physical world, and oh also computer software things.
|
| I'm not in favour of patents at all, but the entire "it's
| math" argument has always seemed exceedingly weak to me.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| These files have carefully constructed format though. To
| read and write the patented format goes beyond patenting
| math. I think cmrdporcupine was getting at something.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yep, it's not like I think the patent is just. I think
| software patents are mostly junk. But saying "because
| it's math" is highly uninformative.
| alex_smart wrote:
| First principles is fine, but where is the argument?
| drmpeg wrote:
| B-frames (bi-directional predicted frames with a
| reference frame in both the past and the future) are
| patented. I'd say that's a process or method.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| The link you're looking for is curry howard correspondance
| alex_smart wrote:
| I don't quite understand how you do not recognize that that
| is a strong argument _against_ your position.
| FabHK wrote:
| Insofar as GP seems to be against software patents in
| general, it is not an argument against his position, is
| it?
| alex_smart wrote:
| It definitely is. Church Turing thesis basically states
| that _all_ systematic procedures can be encoded as math.
| So, software can be encoded as math yes, but also music
| can be encoded as math. _Life_ can be encoded as math
| (which is what our DNA is).
|
| Rather than providing a basis of not allowing software to
| patented, I think it makes the statement "X can be
| encoded as math" trivially true - and therefore
| uninteresting.
|
| In so far as there is value in patents on any systematic
| procedure at all, the position that "software should not
| be patentable because it can be encoded as math" is
| completely untenable.
| t-3 wrote:
| The difference is that music is not, in fact, math. The
| representation is abstract to the utility. With software,
| the math is the utility.
| nceqs3 wrote:
| Here is a list of the essential patents from the main pool:
| https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/hevc-att1.pdf
|
| Find a single US patent that "claims" maths as GP argued. It
| doesn't exist.
| monocasa wrote:
| I picked first US patent listed (US 7,292,636), and it's
| first claim says
|
| > 1. For a bitstream comprising a first video picture, a
| second video picture, and a third video picture, a method
| of decoding comprising: computing a particular value that
| is based on (i) a first order difference value between an
| order value for the third video picture and an order value
| for the first video picture, and (ii) a second order
| difference value between an order value for the second
| video picture and the order value for the first video
| picture; computing a particular motion vector for the
| second video picture based on the particular value and a
| motion vector for the third video picture; and decoding at
| least one video picture by using the computed motion
| vector.
|
| That certainly sounds like math to me.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| If you're against patents, yes.
|
| If you're gainfully employed doing math things that turn into
| codecs, no.
|
| Patents suck, but they also serve a purpose.
| nceqs3 wrote:
| Every country in the world "endorses" the concept of
| "essential" patents. It's called a patent.
| zepolen wrote:
| > that's literally all a video codec is
|
| Go on then, make a better video codec, as it's _just_ math.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Nobody said math is simple.
|
| Also, isn't that just AV1? (it does seem optimized for the
| particular niche of streaming vendors though: minimizing
| bandwidth at all costs)
| Razengan wrote:
| > _video codecs are the exemplary "we'll patent math and
| there's nothing you can do about it" scam, since that's
| literally all a video codec is_
|
| Most software is literally all math.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| IMO the real issues caused by patent encumbered formats is
| that what is patented is not the software itself, but the
| format. So instead of patenting a specific implementation of
| an encoder or a decoder, what is patented here is the
| relationship between the bits on disk and the pixels on the
| screen. I think that's what the quoted text is trying to get
| at.
| alex_smart wrote:
| The Church Turing thesis basically states that any systematic
| procedure can be encoded into math. Software can be encoded
| as math, yes, but music can be encoded as math. _Life_ can
| encoded as math (which is what your DNA is).
|
| I really don't understand how the parent commenter fails to
| see that this makes "X is math" basically a meaningless
| statement because it is always trivially true and makes their
| position "math shouldn't be patented" completely untenable.
| dordoka wrote:
| Software patents should not be a thing... but the US
| neoliberalism fucked it up for everyone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-09 23:01 UTC)