Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M : hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se

Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 7 months ago by rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se [B] to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

I'm thinking that capitalism may have been a bad idea.

[–] ISolox@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Is there any real advantage over using H.264 vs something like AV1 that's open source?

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Davel23@fedia.io 17 points 7 months ago (1 child)

H.264 is like MP3. It may not be the best solution, but everything supports it.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 4 points 7 months ago

Only because it was created back in 2003. 23 years of legacy hardware will give you an advantage.

Otherwise it is inferior in every way.

parent

[–] Melusine@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 6 points 7 months ago

I would say hardware accelerated decoding for some older clients. Even as we probably like royaltee free codecs, this should not be a reason to push for e waste. More like getting rid of patents but this is another fight

parent

[–] Lee@retrolemmy.com 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Recently Dolby has sued over AV1 patent infringement. I wonder if that motivated the H.264 alliance to raise fees. The article mentions H.265 fee increase but not the recent Dolby suit against SNAP. The gist of that suit is Dolby claims AV1 violates their patents and they didn't agree to allow AV1 to use those patents, so it doesn't matter that AV1 itself is an open standard as it's still a violation.

parent

132 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post

42 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post