Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. I am thinking if this is going to be some sort of play against VVC.

Or will Youtube and Netflix force AV1 upon everyone where if you want high quality HDR or 4K Content you will require AV1.

View on HN

> Or will Youtube and Netflix force AV1 upon everyone where if you want high quality HDR or 4K Content you will require AV1.

I sure hope so!

I sure hope it's a war on VVC. I don't know why anyone would want a patent encumbered pay-to-use video codec over an open free one unless you're a stakeholder.

All else being equal, that is...

>I don't know why anyone would want a patent encumbered pay-to-use video codec

Again AV1 is not Patent free either.

But it is royalty-free. The patents are freely licensed to those implementing/using AV1.

On YouTube you already need a device that supports VP9.2 to get HDR. And there's a huge amount of HDR TVs/STBs (including Sony and the flagship Shield TV) which don't get HDR YouTube because they only support base VP9 and H.265.

Youtube probably will; I doubt Netflix will. Netflix has no horse in this race, so to speak.

It's also just easier for Netflix to keep the data in more formats, because they have far, far less data than Youtube.

The real question is how the rest of the market will respond to EVC, not necessarily VVC.

As far as I can tell, I dont see EVC being in the race. Its free profile is barely any better than H.264, while its pay profile is no where near VVC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com